8 ms·
Google Secretly Invested In Zynga, Preparing To Launch Google Games
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- niekmaas 16y agoWasn't Zynga threatening to leave Facebook or start a (long) legal battle? This is ideal for Google of course since they have been struggling to get their social networks to really take off. Getting Zynga to move to Google exclusively could be the boost they have been waiting for so long.
- awa 16y agoI think it would be suicide for Zynga to abandon Facebook completely, afaik, they make games which can easily duplicated and hence alternatives would pop up on Facebook soon.
- there 16y agohttp://techcrunch.com/2010/05/07/zynga-gunning-up-and-lawyering-up-for-war-against-facebook-with-zynga-live/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/07/zynga-gunning-up-and-lawyer... and soon after, they released their standalone ipad farmville app
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- dieterrams 16y agoDoes this mean we can finally abandon the idea that Google's mission is "to organize the world's information"?
- gruseom 16y agoNot if the article's argument is correct and this is really about the social graph.
- dieterrams 16y agoThere's tons of money to be made off social games alone. And to the extent that it's about "the social graph", it's about making money off the social graph. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but as Google becomes increasingly involved with owning, controlling, and/or providing content, as opposed to just "organizing" it (indexing the web, organizing email, etc.), their mission statement becomes more PR fluff than truth. With Search and Gmail, their ability to obtain user data at least hinged upon Google's superior ability to index web and email information and make it "universally accessible and useful." Obtaining social graph data through an existing social games developer isn't like that at all.
- snprbob86 16y agoI don't think so. Games are a gateway into the living room, which plays into the other half of their mission: making that information universally accessible and useful.
- neilk 16y agoThey've been off that course since at least 2005 or so. Notice how now they're putting money into social when things like Book Search are relatively stagnant. Their real mission is something like "exploit cloud computing".
- SoftwareMaven 16y agoIt is still organizing the world's information. They've just learned that there is a prioritization people see in that organization: information from people they know trumps information gleaned from Page Rank.
- Sember 16y agoIn my opinion Google is all over the place, everywhere at the same time which could lead to overextension of resources and finances. This could ruin Google at some point in the future, they are losing focus.
- ippisl 16y agoYes , they are all over the place, but some see it as trying to optimize and defend the whole value chain of their main products. sort of vertical integration , in the unique form it shows on the internet.
- dirtyaura 16y agoBig tech companies should be all over the place. If they focus too much, they will die, because ability to change is a survival strategy in tech sector. And this particular case seems to very strategic for Google. It's believed (inside Google too) that Facebook could be the major thread to Google, if people start searching in Facebook first and go to Google only as a second option. Thus, attacking Facebook directly is very strategic move. And it seems to fit nicely to Android strategy too.
- lhnz 16y agoYou can have a mission, but you also need to make money. Business.
- CoachRufus87 16y agoZynga games will tie into the GoogleMe ecosystem nicely.
- hunterclarke 16y agoIs it just me, or is Zynga raising an absolutely obnoxious amount of money?
- bpm140 16y agoThey've been profitable since their very first quarter and, according to the TC article, they will likely make as much in profit next year as they've raised in the last three years. The fundraising is almost exclusively used for acquisition, so what's the obnoxious part?
- po 16y agoFarmville is evil; Zynga makes Farmville; Google invested in Zynga. Q.E.D. ;-)
- seldo 16y agoGoogle bought DoubleClick. They were tainted from then on, as far as I'm concerned. DoubleClick had a known shady history, and executives from DC moved into positions of influence within Google.
- EricBurnett 16y agoJust curious, what terrible things has DoubleClick done since being bought by Google? If anything, I'd say Google 'tainted' them and not the other way around.
- seldo 16y agoIt's not that DoubleClick has done the terrible things, it's that Google has done them. The naked attempt to monetize wikipedia's eyeballs that was Knol. The careless lack of attention to privacy that was the Buzz launch. The very existence of Buzz, a me-too product that does nothing different to the existing competition. It's hard to imagine the Google of 2004 launching those products. Of course, it's not all bad -- Chrome is very much an old-Google product, pouring innovation into a category that was content to slowly iterate. Android is another example of good-for-Google, good-for-everyone innovation. But those examples are getting fewer and further between, while copycat products are getting more common.
- speek 16y agoI don't quite understand how this fits into the grand scheme of Google. Now I think Google is just buying stuff to buy stuff. Though I could see acquiring user-interaction data being useful, especially in the casual space.
- jgilliam 16y agoGoogle is freaking out over Facebook. This gives them both a chance to build out their own social graph (say as a launch partner for Google Me), and access to a copy of most of Facebook's. This data is important for search, but critical for ads.
- seldo 16y agoOh Google. The sharks are circling and you're strapping on your waterskis.
- mynameishere 16y agoCan you imagine working on Farmville? I mean, it would be like going into work every day to refine the equivilent of the Fisher Price moo farm toy [1] except a) for adults and b) relatively juvenile. Imagine the meetings, mostly run by marketing idiots. "Okay, we need the new chewy coco grove coconut tree special item out by next Monday. So that means everyone's coming in on saturday." But how can you argue with 85 million users and a billion in revenue? Google sure can't. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek_qxoGDyAw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek_qxoGDyAw
- code_duck 16y agoHow is this different than the rest of the game industry?
- alnayyir 16y agoReplace moo moo with desert eagle. People have an easier time taking themselves seriously when guns and demons are involved. Cf. comic books, authors, goth teenagers
- WesleyJohnson 16y agoYou can also get a large mix of both. My brother works for a studio that, until recently, only developed racing games for the DS. So they might be working on the next Need for Speed and Barbie racing at the same time.
- thwarted 16y agoWith the right engine, that should be a matter of theming.
- traskjd 16y agoExactly right. I present on game development to local user groups in New Zealand and I always get a good response when citing "It's fun to write games - wouldn't you much rather be writing a class called SuperLaserWeapon than MembershipIdentityProvider" :-)
- code_duck 16y agoWell, good luck to Google. Given that the public donated $175k to a group of inexperienced, unknown programmers who did little more than say they were out to replace Facebook, I'd say the market is ready for an alternative.
- peter123 16y agoIt's strategic for both parties. Google wants to get Facebook users onto their own network and Zynga needs to reduce their sole dependence on Facebook.
- metachris 16y agoAnyone has heard of "Google Games" before? It seems to be a social gaming platform which will be available on Android as well. Couldn't find any info about it though.
- Jun8 16y agoI think Google's worry about Facebook (partly justified, partly not) is starting to cause them to make pointless (and time wasting) decisions. If I had 5mins with Sergei and Larry, I would say (after taking a long sip from the free organic drink I just got from the snack bar we're standing next to) "Look, the real enemy is not FB but Apple (and sometimes your own engineering hubris, e.g. Buzz), so focus all your troops on this front. Don't dilute your strengths with topsy-turvy fads like Farmville. Remember the last time you tried that route when you tried to copy Second Life's act, does anyone even remember them now? Concentrate on (i) getting an Android tablet out, and (ii) get a $99 Google TV box running on Atom with cool software (not the sorry thing you showed at the I/O) to beat Apple to the punch. It's that simple."
- joubert 16y agoThey have a pretty disappointing track record when it comes to consumer hardware. I bet it is not in their DNA.
- donw 16y agoI think that their hiring and internal quality-control process excludes it, actually. For building Google's search engine, you need people who know search and sorting algorithms backwards, forwards, inside-out, and upside down. You need hardcore A/B testing based on statistical significance, and rigorous respect of the data you collect. To make the iPhone and the iPad, you need neither of those. You need one guy who will walk around like an idiot for months pretending that a deck of cards is his telephone, and writing down every observation and thought that he has on usability. You need a master craftsman who can direct the entire experience, without losing his head in the tech specs. Google doesn't hire people like that. Decisions are made by committee, backed by data and research, which gives them their edge in technical excellence, but also cripples them in hardware and marketing. It kills me. I really want Google to succeed here; Apple has effectively zero competition in the smartphone and tablet market other than Google. Ok, what follows is a bit of a rant. :) Personally, the first thing I'd do with Android is revamp the market and distribution model to standardize the OS across platforms and vendors, so that an Android works the same no matter where you got it. Vendors can add in custom content (wallpapers, extra apps, ringtones, etc), but the interface (icons, look-and-feel) needs to be the same. The vendors will go with this. They're getting their asses handed to them by Apple, and Google is their lifeline, because they're saving a ton on development costs. Second, I'd market the hell out of the areas that Apple cant match, but that matter to the consumer, namely voice search, and maybe being able to hold the phone in the human hand without losing reception. And whatever you do, don't play the celebrity card. Apple's iPhone and iPad ads make it look like you're using the device. Google could steal a page from that, but with Android devices being used in the real world, not in the Apple cleanroom.
- llimllib 16y agoGoogle -> Google!
- ojbyrne 16y agoEvery day I go to 7-11 for coffee. And cringe at the zynga branding everywhere.
- bd 16y agoInteresting. Both Google and Zynga are very much data driven companies. Remember story about Google choosing shade of blue by testing 41 variants? That's how Zynga designs its (extremely successful) games. Everything is measured and analyzed. They are basically conducting one massive experimental psychology study of what makes people (s)tick.
- barmstrong 16y agoThis sounds like TechCrunch editorializing and trying to make a story out of nothing. I don't think Google cares about this.
- alanh 16y agoJust throwing this out there: I consider it unethical to invest in Zynga. Edit: They are essentially using psychology, social and otherwise, to ultimately trick people out of their money. A classic on the topic: http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/31/scamville-the-social-gaming-ecosystem-of-hell/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/31/scamville-the-social-gaming...
- s3graham 16y agoCare to expand? I'm not especially familiar with them other than they make some casual games.
- Tichy 16y agoA while ago they were involved in a scandal, when it became clear that most of their money came from ads for scams. Don't have a link for you, but should be easy to find. (Edit: "Scamville" might be a good keyword to try).
- JMiao 16y agonot disagreeing with you, but you could say the same thing about gilt groupe, groupon, etc. one man's "scam" could very well be another man's "deal."
- pclark 16y agoKeeping someones attention is almost the winning or losing factor in startupa
- cybernytrix 16y agoAnd when did corporations start having morals or even ethics? Google is just interested in the $$$.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- greenlblue 16y agoThe article says something about social graph but that doesn't make sense. Gmail basically rules the world when it comes to email so they already have a lot of social graph information just from email correspondences. There must be some other strategy they are pursuing.
- Encosia 16y agoIn terms of userbase, GMail is still third behind Hotmail and Yahoo. I would bet that current Farmville users overlap less with GMail than other email services too.
- naturalized 16y agoThis is great news for China. While the Silicon Valley gets rotten from inside, making this useless stuff, they will be buying bankrupt US chip companies and making their own microprocessors.
- pclark 16y agoYou consider Zynga, a company with a ridiculous amount of attention from users, and expected to hit $1Bn revenues next year, useless?
- Vorcha 16y agoThe potential of this is astounding, across Google web, Android, and Chromium.
- Eternal_Cowboy 16y agoIsn't TechCrunch a terribly unreliable source? I thought after the last.fm debacle that you shouldn't exactly trust them.